Industrial revolution is the revolution of industrial production technology, and it is a kind of revolution that machine production replaces manual labor.[[i]] Before the industrial revolution, the world presented the accumulation of quantitative change and slow change, but after the industrial revolution, it presented the rapid leap of qualitative change. Britain is also a country with the first industrial revolution in history. The whole world has undergone earth shaking changes under the guidance of the British Industrial Revolution. Britain has gradually changed from a traditional agricultural society to a modern industrial society. As the origin of the whole world modernization, the important role of British Industrial Revolution in the process of world history is self-evident. Many famous scholars in history have made deep research on the related problems of the British Industrial Revolution. What kind of factors triggered the British revolution that changed the whole world? Since the late 19th century, scholars have been arguing about it widely. Among them, Toynbee emphasized the important role in the rise of industrial revolution from the liberalism factor, Cunningham from the capital accumulation and expanding market factor, and bauden from the demand factor. Lipson and Ashton believed that the industrial revolution was caused by many factors, such as the accumulation of capital, the surge of population, the rise of commodity prices, the early development of coal and the expansion of domestic and foreign markets.[[ii]]

The early scholars discussed the different reasons of the industrial revolution in Britain from the single cause theory and the multi-factor theory respectively, but the organic connection between the various factors promoting economic growth has not been clarified. The changes in political, legal and economic relations caused by the British bourgeois revolution in the 17th century are rarely involved.[[iii]] So in the 1990s, a new generation of scholars set off a new round of discussion, Gregory Clark, an American economic historian, once commented , no two scholars have reached an agreement on the cause of the industrial revolution, and the explanation is still in heated debate.[[iv]] In the new period, there are three new theories: one is endogenous growth theory, that is, to find out the reasons in the development of British internal economy. The second is the new institutional factors, that is, because Britain established a relatively loose and democratic political system earlier, it stimulated the development of domestic trade. The third is to integrate the growth theory and comprehensively consider the economic factors to jointly promote the British Industrial Revolution. 

It is different from the logic of investment growth in endogenous growth and integrated growth. Douglas North's new institutional economic theory explores the logical evolution process from cognition to belief, then to institution and finally to performance. He affirmed the important role of belief and political system in the process of the qualitative change of British economy.[[v]] Although the new system theory has been known by historians, its latest expansion is rarely mentioned here.[[vi]]

Chinese scholars rarely discuss the reasons from the perspective of political system.Qian Chengdan once pointed out: "all these factors exist, but the fundamental factor is the establishment of an appropriate political system in Britain after the glorious revolution.[[vii]] What kind of system is suitable for economic development? How did the British system promote the British Industrial Revolution?

1. Liu zongxu, Modern world history [M]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 2004, P. 7.

2. Wang Zhanghui, Several views on the British Industrial Revolution in the British historiography circle [J], world history, Beijing, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1982, No. 6: 67-73.

3. Wang Zhanghui, Several views on the British Industrial Revolution in the British historiography circle [J], world history, Beijing, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1982, No. 6: 67-83.

4. Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World[M], Princeton University Press,2007, P. 230.

5. North, Douglas. Understanding the process of economic change. Trans. Zhong Zhengsheng et al. Beijing, China Renmin University Press, 2013.

6. Xu Bin, Causes of industrial revolution and modern economic growth: theoretical origin of relevant historical explanations in recent ten years[J], Research on historical theory, 2018, issue 1: 110-121.

7. Qian chengdan, Xu Jieming: a general history of Britain [M], Shanghai, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2007, P. 222.

8. Sen, Amartya. Ethics and economics [M]. Trans. Wang Yu, Wang Wenyu. Beijing, Commercial Press, 2000, P. 9.

9. Brodale, Material civilization, economy and capitalism in the 15th-18th century, Volume 3[M], translated by Gu Liang and fan Kangqiang, Beijing: Sanlian bookstore, April 1993.

10. Zhang Dinghe, Bai Xuefeng, history of Western political system [M], Jinan, Shandong people's publishing house, 2003, P. 31.

11. Qian Chengdan, Xu Jieming, General history of Britain [M], Shanghai, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2007, P. 212.

12. A.S. Turberville. The House of Lords in the Eighteen Centery,Oxford,1927 P. 459.

13. J. Prum, h.  The Growth of British Political Stability 1675-1725, McMillan, 1967, P. 90.

14. G.B.Adams, Constitutional History of England, London,1984. P. 397.

15. Complete works of Marx and Engels, Volume I [M], Beijing: People's publishing house, 1956, P. 687.

16. Guo Huarong, history of French political system [M], Beijing: People's publishing house, 2005, P. 73.

17. Gu Hongneng, Comparative political system[M], Wuhan,Wuhan University Press, 2010.11, P. 96.

18. Wiener roher, German history [M], Beijing: Sanlian bookstore, 1959, P. 108.

19. J. Carter, Revolution and Constitution, in G. Holmes (editor in chief), Britain after The Glorious Revolution, McMillan, 1969, P. 46

20. B.W. Hill, The Growth of The Parties Parliamentary, 1689-1742, London,1976, P. 23.

21. J. Miller. The Glorious Revolution, Longman,1983, P. 49.

22. Aristotle, Politics [M], trans. Wu Shoupeng, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1965, P. 85.

23. Aristotle, Politics [M], trans. Wu Shoupeng, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1965, P. 84.

24. Aristotle, Politics [M], trans. Wu Shoupeng, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1965, P. 108.

25. J.C.D. Clark,English society, 1688-1832,Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice During the Ancient regime, Cambridge University Press,1985,P.75-92.

26. North, Robert Thomas, Douglas. The rise of the western world. Trans. Li Yiping, Cai Lei. Beijing, Huaxia publishing house, 1989: 1-2.

27. Douglass C. North, John Joseph Walls and Barry R.Weingast, Violence and Social Orders, A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge University Press, 2009, P. 99, 102, 104, 148.

28. Joel Mokyr and John V. C. Nye, Distributional Coalition, the Industrial R evolution and the Origins of Economic Growth in Britain ,South Economic Journal,2007,74(1), P. 53-54, 68 -69.

29. Qian Chengdan, Xu Jieming,General history of Britain [M], Shanghai, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2007, P. 231.

30. E.N.Williams(ed), The Eighteenth Century Constitution, Documents and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 1977. P.74-75. 

Amartya Sen, a famous economist, pointed out the research of economics must be combined with the research of ethics and politics.[[i]] The historian Brodale also quoted the philosopher Lukacs as saying that everything in history is interrelated. Especially economic activities, it cannot be separated from the surrounding political and belief environment, and cannot be isolated from the local possibilities and restrictions at that time.[[ii]] The relationship between economic development and political system is not only simple and mechanical, but also complex interaction.

Therefore, the cause of British Industrial Revolution is not only the economic level such as population, resources and market, but also the strong driving force of political system. There is a common view that Britain established a constitutional monarchy democracy in the glorious revolution. It is this democratic political system that provides a relatively loose and free environment for British industry.

In fact, this view is reasonable, but not entirely accurate. Because democracy and dictatorship are divided according to whether citizens have the right to participate in politics.

There are two forms of Democracy: direct democracy and indirect democracy.[[iii]]

According to this standard, the establishment of democracy in Britain is a long process, and the glorious revolution is only the starting point of the establishment of democracy in Britain. From 1688 to 1832 was the transitional period of constitutional monarchy. In fact, the 18th century England formed a typical aristocratic political system. At this time, the rule of a person has passed, the majority of the rule has not come, a few aristocrats control the power, and the people have no right to participate in the political affairs.[[iv]] That is to say, Britain on the eve of the industrial revolution was a typical aristocratic regime. Compared with Britain and other European countries in the 17th century before the glorious revolution, this regime is a democratic one. Compared with Britain in the 19th century after the industrial revolution, it is an incomplete democracy. There are some obvious defects in the British aristocratic system. The reason why it is called aristocratic government is that the British people did not obtain political rights before the industrial revolution, and the upper class aristocrats with strong economic power controlled a series of privileges such as legislative power and decision-making power, according to the statistics, in 1747, England's 70 nobles controlled 167 seats. By 1786, the number of seats controlled by the nobles reached 210, accounting for 37% of the seats in the house of Commons at that time.[[v]] The undemocratic factors of aristocratic system have led to some corruption and waste in this period. In 1784, Lord grevenus spent 8500 pounds in the Chester election to entertain voters.[[vi]] In addition, the British parliamentary system does not have the economic conditions for reform, inherits many old traditions, and has some problems such as unreasonable distribution of electoral votes in districts. At that time, the members of the house of commons were not the representatives of the bottom people of the country. In 1761, there were only 250000 voters among the 7 million residents, less than 4% of the total. Even among the 650 members of the house of Commons, 487 are not actually elected but are designated by individuals.[[vii]] Minority government is easily controlled by aristocratic oligarchs. The king's rights were not deprived but restricted. During the period of George III (1760-1820), he once controlled the parliament through the friends of the king faction, which pushed the king's rights to the top again, although it failed in the end, it fully shows that the British Parliament was still a minority Parliament at that time, as Engels pointed out, the house of Commons is nothing more than a closed medieval guild independent of the people.[[viii]] At the same time, the British government has a relatively democratic positive side. The 18th century was not peaceful for France. The autocratic monarchy was declining and the class contradictions were very sharp. France was facing the eve of revolutionary turmoil.

Under the decadent and autocratic rule of Louis XV, the whole society fell into a deep disaster. The people at the bottom were deeply oppressed. Some houses were openly posted with notices, and dogs, servants and soldiers were not allowed to enter.[[ix]]

The privilege level not only does not have to bear any political responsibility, but also enjoys political and economic privileges, after the religious reform, Germany passed the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and the Empire was actually divided into more than 300 vassal states.[[x]] Under the rule of Frederick I (1701-1713) and Frederick II (1740-1786), Germany also declined. Frederick I made it clear to the junckers that I was the king and should do whatever I wanted.[[xi]] Because of the decadence of France and the backwardness of Germany, the two powerful countries on the European continent do not have a stable and unified social environment for the establishment of democratic system, and the industrial revolution in the economic field is even more impossible. In the same period, Britain had restrictions on the power of the two countries. Because of the defects of the aristocratic regime, although the power of King George III once appeared the trend of expansion, the overall trend of the British King's power was downward.

After 1708, the king's veto power over parliamentary bills was in name only, and judicial independence was realized,

During the first George (1714-1729) period, under the advice of the chief justice, only individual judges were adjusted.[[xii]]The executive power of the king gradually shifted to the cabinet.The cabinet system gradually formed and strengthened the contact with the parliament, and the power of the parliament gradually increased. According to Hill's statistics, in the year after the glorious revolution, the parliament held more meetings than the sum of the previous ten years.[[xiii]] The transfer of the king's power to parliament, representing the 18th century Britain is developing towards democracy and freedom. Hill even said that for the producers, Britain has become a particularly free society since 1688.[[xiv]] In his book politics, Aristotle divided the state polity into two kinds and six categories, they are monarchy, aristocracy, republic, tyrant, oligarchy and civilian, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 shows Aristotle's classification of state regimes.

Among them, tyranny is a variant of monarchy, oligarchy is a variant of aristocracy, and plebeian is a variant of Republic.[[xv]] As we can see from the table, Aristotle's criterion for judging the correctness of a political system is not the number of people who govern formally, he believes that a correct political system must be one, a few, or a majority aiming at the common interests of citizens, however, if we aim at private interests, whether one person, a few or many people are in power, it is the transformation of the right political system.[[xvi]] That is to say, the public interest of citizens becomes the core of judgment, which has certain rationality. So in addition to the three wrong regimes, Aristotle praised the monarchy in the remaining three correct regimes. However, from the perspective of the common interests of citizens, Aristotle clearly stated that aristocratic government is more desirable than monarchy.[[xvii]]

Because in a monarchy ruled by one person, if we want to realize the common interests of citizens, we must have a monarch who always attaches importance to the public interests of citizens, but this situation is relatively rare and idealized. The Republican and aristocratic regimes belong to the collective rather than the individual rule, which can overcome the disadvantages brought by individual rule, and can give the society freedom and equality. The biggest difference between the two is the number of ruling people, so Aristotle should be more inclined to aristocratic and republican government. Britain in the 18th century was a typical patriarchal society, in which aristocrats were regarded as parents.[[xviii]] The British government in the early stage of the industrial revolution obviously belonged to the aristocratic government which Aristotle approved, and provided a powerful opportunity and power for the rise of the British Industrial Revolution. It is understandable that the qualitative change in economy was not driven by the monarchy. Because the monarchy ruled by one person has very high requirements for the personal conduct of the monarch, it is easy to form autocracy, dictatorship and tyranny. Tyranny under the monarchy is everywhere in history. However, the Republic is the rule of the majority, which is more democratic and free than the aristocratic regime. It is one of the regimes approved by Aristotle. The industrial revolution of England start from the aristocratic system of government, what's its secret?

3  The promotion of British aristocracy to the industrial revolution Of course, there are many economic factors in the occurrence of British Industrial Revolution, such as the growth of population, the progress of science and technology, the development and utilization of coal and other resources. But the emergence of these economic factors depends on the establishment and promotion of the corresponding political system. Douglas North and Robert Thomas regarded the political system of a country as a kind of meta system, and believed that a series of political systems with Parliament as the core and a series of economic systems with private property rights as the core were established in the process of institutional change after the glorious revolution. These efficient systems are the key to economic growth and the reason for the rise of the West.[[xix]] Combined with the foregoing, the British government in the eighteenth Century was a aristocratic regime. Further, the notable features of the British aristocracy led to the rise of the British Industrial Revolution. The formation of aristocratic politics is characterized by conservatism. Conservatism not only refers to the kings and nobles who represent the conservative forces in the aristocratic regime, which occupy an important position in the national rights institutions, but also refer to the gradual and slow characteristics of the period of aristocratic regime. In terms of the duration, the aristocratic system of government in England lasted from 1688 to 1830, as a transition period from autocratic system to democratic system, it is a relatively long period of time, during this period, the transformation and evolution of various state power institutions were relatively slow and moderate, and there was no major revolutionary movement. Because of the decline of feudalism in England, the rulers had to rely more on non local wealth, the result is that the ruling class constantly absorbs the business elite, and the new elite brings their beliefs into the ruling class, which changes the belief system of the ruling class.[[xx]] Therefore, the British nobles, as representatives of the old forces, were always able to make the necessary concessions at the critical point of the impending revolution. They were able to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie in most cases, both economically and politically. The parliament promulgated a series of bills, such as the bill of rights and the law of succession to the throne, which weakened the royal power and strengthened the constitutional monarchy. They were all made and passed with the participation of nobles. They even intermarry with the bourgeoisie and constantly absorb new blood to change their class composition in order to strengthen their strength. To a certain extent, it alleviated the intensification of the conflicts between the common people and the aristocracy, and between the emerging bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, and preserved the aristocratic rights and the existence of the class in the form of constant compromise and concession. Conservatism seems to be a slightly derogatory word in the historical dictionary, and it has always been a representative of backwardness and conservatism, however, Britain turned decadence into magic and endowed conservatism with positive connotation and function. Conservatism not only saved the British aristocracy, but also played an important and positive role in promoting the national economy. In the form of radical revolution, France completed its major political changes and established a republic without a monarchy, but it also brought about the continuous changes and turbulence of the domestic political situation in the past century, domestic politics was extremely unstable, and there was a long-term lack of a stable environment for economic development, France had lost the opportunity to be the first to carry out industry, 

as for Britain, Joel morkiel pointed out that after the glorious revolution, the power of Parliament was growing, and the landowners and the business class formed a political alliance. This change enabled the British system to adapt to changes in environment and ideas. Change through reform, not violence, promoted a clear shift to a freer market economy, and the industrial revolution was created.[28]

The British conservative aristocratic system did not always follow the old ways, but made limited concessions and carried out slow changes under the necessary premise.

Although this kind of change is slow, every step is very stable, and class contradictions can be basically alleviated by peaceful means of mutual consultation, which provides a long-term stable domestic environment for the rapid development of the domestic economy. In addition, political change and economic change can be carried out alternately at the same time, which seems to be slow but is actually rapid. This is why Britain, which has always followed suit and carefully learned from other countries, was able to stand out in the 18th and 19th centuries. As Qian Chengdan said, the British Industrial Revolution was in an extremely conservative era, the rapid development of economic innovation and political conservatism at the same time, which is also a noteworthy phenomenon.[29] Since then, conservatism has become one of the long-term governing policies of Britain. The right subjects of aristocratic regime are relatively balanced. This balance is first realized in the legislative power of Britain. In this regard, the famous modern British jurist brythone had a brilliant summary. Without the consent of the executive, the legislature should not deprive the executive of any rights obtained by law. If the law comes into force for a long time, it can only be changed with the consent of the monarch and the two houses. In this way, in the legislature (parliament), the people contain the nobility and the nobility contain the people. The two chambers prevent the administrative organs from overstepping their powers. All parts of our national machinery support and receive support from other parties. It's like three kinds of repairmen with different authorities, who do their jobs in different aspects and work together to start the machine.[30] The above evaluation fully reflects that in the British aristocratic system, the kings, the Parliament and the two houses of Parliament restrain each other in legislation, and the legislative power and executive power restrain each other. This equilibrium relationship is also reflected in the administrative game among the king, the nobility and the prime minister. In the 18th century, through the establishment of a series of principles, such as the establishment of the leadership core headed by the prime minister, the cabinet gradually evolved from the king's subordination to the core of national administration. In 1784, the prime minister Pete Jr. dissolved the Parliament and held a new election, which strengthened the connection between the cabinet and the parliament. The cabinet system began to take shape, but it did not completely get rid of the influence of the monarch on the cabinet. The Prime Minister of the cabinet still had to rely on the support of the king. Cottwright, who repeatedly wanted to step into the British government but failed, once sighed that whoever can get the support of the king can despise everything.[31] At this time, the power of the upper class aristocrats in Parliament was growing, they held the vast majority of positions in the central, local, government and military, and controlled the cabinet.

For example, from 1780 to 1820, among the 65 cabinet members, 43 were aristocrats and 16 were aristocratic descendants. Six of the remaining eight came from gentry families, and three retired to the upper house.[32] The aristocracy's control of the house of Commons was also increasing. In 1747, there were 167 seats in the lower house controlled by the nobles of the upper house, and in 1786 there were more than 210, accounting for 37% of the total number of seats in the lower house.[33]

Although the upper aristocracy had great power at this time, the development of British political parties was not mature, which made the aristocracy be restrained by the king to a certain extent when they made national decisions. In order to consolidate and strengthen his administrative power, the king rewarded the officials with their salaries and appointed members of the upper house. According to the statistics of Yan Zhaoxiang, a Chinese scholar, at the beginning of the 18th century, 120 members of the house of Commons received posts and annuities from the king and the government. Since then, such members have continued to increase.[34]After entering the Parliament and the cabinet, these people will naturally reflect the will of the king and form a situation of confrontation with the Parliament and the cabinet. It is worth noting that the balance of various subjects of political rights in Britain during this period, it is different from the absolute balance of the separation of powers of Congress, President and Supreme Court established by the constitution of 1787. The former is a relative balance, and the upper aristocracy has a slight advantage in the three rights. The upper aristocracy not only controlled the legislative power, but also the executive, judicial and military power. Tocqueville once said that although Britain in the 18th century had some important democratic factors, it was essentially an aristocratic country, because its legal system and customs were always established according to the aristocratic requirements, with the passage of time, it gradually occupied the dominant position and guided public affairs according to its own will.[35]

To some extent, this kind of balance in which the upper aristocracy was slightly dominant eliminated absolute checks and balances. This will change the situation of low administrative efficiency in absolute checks and balances, so as to improve administrative efficiency. Britain is also a country with the supremacy of law. When the opinions of the three cannot be unified, they will be solved by law. Hayek clearly pointed out that the important reason for the British Industrial Revolution was that before and after the glorious revolution in 1688, the discretion of the state administrative organs was restricted by law.[36] Under the restriction of law, we can prevent the abuse of government's public rights, and social development can be more reasonable and fair, stable and orderly. In addition, due to the integration of some businessmen and new nobles with a lot of wealth in the upper class, they passed many laws conducive to the development of capitalism. For example, the parliament enacted laws to strengthen the protection of patent rights and private property. The parliament also abolished the granting of special monopoly rights, which led to the continuous emergence of innovation in the field of technology, ideology and culture in the 18th century in Britain. It improved and optimized the British legal system. Finally, the political composition of aristocratic government shows the characteristics of mixed and inclusive. Mixing is the essential attribute of aristocratic government.

In dividing the six regimes, Aristotle once said that aristocracy and Republic are a mixture of oligarchy and plebeian, this kind of mixed regime which tends to be civilian regime is called republican regime. The mixed system of government inclined to oligarchy is called aristocratic system of government.[37]After a long period of baptism, the British aristocratic government in the 18th century is essentially different from the previous aristocratic government, and more complex than the previous aristocratic government. At this time, the aristocratic government absorbed part of the democracy of the Republic, and retained part of the rights of the monarch in the monarchy. In this way, it formed a short-lived and excessive form of pluralistic government, which was named aristocratic government because it was more inclined to the characteristics of aristocratic oligarchy. First of all, it has a representative of the Democratic parliament, especially the house of Commons has the characteristics of the Republic. However, after the initial reform of the glorious revolution, the parliament in this period was different from the Parliament which only represented the interests of the nobility in the middle ages. In the 18th century, with the cooperation and mutual integration of aristocrats, financiers and big businessmen, the parliament began to represent the interests of big businessmen, and make some decisions conducive to the development of commodity economy. While keeping the original regime unchanged, it maintained the interests of the old aristocracy, such as promoting mercantilism internally, actively carrying out agricultural revolution and supporting the enclosure movement. According to the statistics of Chambers and Minger, in the century after the mid-18th century, the parliament passed more than 4000 territorial laws, and three-quarters of them were enacted in the 1960s and 1970s.[38]Actively carrying out colonial expansion and expanding foreign markets laid the foundation of human, material and financial resources for the industrial revolution. Secondly, the aristocratic regime also retained part of the rights to represent the centralized monarchy. As the symbol of the highest power of the country, the king of England can make the relatively scattered national power more centralized. He can establish a strong national decision-making center, improve the administrative efficiency of the country, and concentrate all forces to promote the development of the country's economy. Of course, science and technology is the first productive force to promote economic development. Mobilizing the enthusiasm of all levels of production will also bring the same impact to the economy as the progress of science and technology. Excessive democracy may lead to the tyranny of the majority, resulting in low administrative efficiency. The harm of excessive centralization is even greater, and it is easy to cause autocracy and dictatorship. The people are only passive in seeking basic food and clothing under the harsh rule, the quality of a country's economy has little to do with each individual of the country, so even the demise of the whole country is only related to a few people who hold great power. It also suppresses the enthusiasm and potential of people living in this country. To a certain extent, the mixed form of government in Britain can avoid the disadvantages of single form of government. For example, in 1769, Wedgwood opened a pottery factory, which pioneered a time system and employed supervisors to urge workers to be punctual. Those who were punctual to work were rewarded, and those who were not punctual were given a certain degree of economic punishment.[39] These measures combine the interests of the factory with the economic interests of each worker, mobilize the enthusiasm of workers in production, greatly improve the production efficiency of the factory, and promote the improvement of product quality at the same time. According to Kraft's estimation, from 1700 to 1760, the average growth rate of British industry and commerce was 0.70%. It was 1.05% in 1760-1780 and 1.18% in 1780-1801.[40] After entering the industrial revolution, it develops more rapidly.

There are many necessary factors to trigger the rise of British Industrial Revolution, but the aristocracy is an indispensable political premise. The aristocratic system was not the most democratic or perfect, but it did become the most suitable political system for British economic development at that time, its conservatism, relative balance and mixture provide a relatively moderate free, democratic and fair development environment for the British Industrial Revolution, and provide a ladder for the lower class to succeed through the postnatal efforts.

A country's political system is by no means simply to achieve prohibition and social stability. If we really want to achieve the combination of the two forces greater than the resultant force, and cause qualitative changes in the economic field, we must find a political measure suitable for the economic development of our country. The aristocratic system was the most suitable political system for the development of Britain at this time, but it could not adapt to the British society after the industrial revolution. After the great changes in the economic field, the British political system is changing towards a more democratic direction. No regime is the best one. Some of them are the best suited to the national economy. The appropriate political system is the best catalyst for economic development. In the real society, the disadvantages of industrial economic development are constantly emerging, and various contradictions begin to appear, the future direction of human economic development must be sustainable and rational. At the beginning of development, the corresponding political system is bound to be a great challenge and test for mankind.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

No funding sources

The study was approved by the School of history, Nanjing University， Nanjing, China.